DURING the course of
the past generation, there had been heard from the Continent, at
first only dimly but ever more loudly as the years passed, the
rumbling of a movement for reform in Judaism.1 In its most moderate
form, this was only a question of improving the decorum of the
service of the synagogue and making its execution more consonant with
the standards of the age. With this idea, the Great Synagogue was in
general agreement, and even in the eighteenth century certain
practices which seemed to create disorder and confusion had been
suspended - for example, the circuits with the scrolls of the law on
the eve of Simhath Torah, as has been mentioned above. From time to
time, attempts were made to introduce other minor reforms of a
similar nature.

However, even those
which were unexceptionable in theory turned out sometimes to present
difficulties in execution. One of the recurrent complaints, for
example, concerned the interposition of monetary offerings during the
service. Every person summoned to the Reading of the Law was not only
expected, but at that time also compelled, to make an offering or
offerings on behalf of the Synagogal funds and charities, "for the
well-being" of those of his relatives and acquaintances whom he
desired to honour.2 In order to prevent persons from scattering
compliments broadcast at bargain rates, it was stipulated that only
five names might be mentioned in each benediction (Mi sheBirach:
literally, "he who blessed", the initial phrase), at the minimum
scale, a further amount having to be offered for additions to this
number. The presiding officers of the Synagogue had to receive
special mention, either individually or collectively, as was also the
case with the Chief Rabbi, the offering made on whose account could
not be less than sixpence. Optional "donations" might also be made
for the material advantage of the Readers, choristers and Shamash,
while persons not summoned to the reading of the law could, if they
desired, have benedictions recited in their name at a later stage in
the proceedings. Accordingly, what should have been one of the most
impressive parts of the service was punctuated by an interminable
series of formulas, of purely personal interest, enlivened only by
speculations as to the amounts involved.

In May 1820, a
number of members of the Synagogue signed a petition to the Presiding
Officers in which they called attention to the evils of the
"prolonged Meshabirach", [sic] which they desired to have
curtailed. "It is pitiful", they maintained, "to behold how
indecently our solemn prayers are hurried on, particularly during the
sacred holidays, in order to allow time for a system of finance
which, however beneficial in its operation, is certainly inconsistent
with decorum and public order." This document was formally presented
to the Committee at its meeting of May 4th by Mr. Judah Cohen (not
one of Levi Barent Cohen's numerous and devoted brood) in the name of
twenty-one signatories.

Their arguments were
incontestable. But those on the other side were also strong. The
synagogue partly depended for its financial stability at that time on
this system, which, if it played to some extent on personal vanity
and desire for publicity, was at least effective. Moreover, it was a
question of the upkeep not only of the synagogue itself, the
interests of which could perhaps be safeguarded by some other means,
but also of various subsidiary charities for which this was a
principal source of income. This consideration proved to be of
overwhelming force; and, after prolonged discussions and several
adjournments, it was decided that "from the manifold distresses of
the poor and the consequent claims, it is inexpedient to hazard any
experiment by which the revenue is likely to be diminished." Seven
years later, the revised Laws of the congregation crystallised the
system as it stood; and though later on it was modified, it was in
fact never abolished.

A serious obstacle
in the way of the anglicisation of the outward forms of the service
was that the officiants were without exception foreign-born and
foreign-trained, and introduced to the Synagogue a style of rendering
which was exotic without being necessarily Jewish. At a general
meeting held on October 20th, 1822, a resolution was passed to the
effect that "it would be the means of promoting true piety, and most
essential to the interest of the rising generation of the Jews, if a
certain number of young men were to be trained and educated so as to
render them capable of filling the situation of Hazan." A
sub-committee of seven was appointed under the chairmanship of Isaac
Lyon Goldsmid (the other members were Hyman Cohen, Lyon Samuel, Peter
Salomons, Michael Joseph, Abraham Hart, and Dr. Joshua van Oven) to
see how the resolution could best be carried into effect. Their
conclusions were a little nebulous. They considered that the small
attendance at Synagogue (a recurrent complaint then as now) was in
some measure to be ascribed to the manner of rendering the service.
They recommended that the Hazan should restrict himself as far as
possible to simple chanting and not embark on elaborate musical
renderings. They considered that it would be desirable to educate two
suitable youths as Reader, though this would prove a wasted effort
unless it were possible to determine on some fixed and regular mode
of officiating. The crux of the whole question, they sagely
concluded, lay not so much in the manner of rendering the service as
in the problem of education, for "the Reader... would have
considerably less difficulty to encounter in exciting a proper
devotion, if his audience were well acquainted with the Hebrew
language, in which prayers are delivered." Another cause for
complaint was the fact that the City Synagogues, fearful of
opposition which would lose them their more affluent members while
leaving them with the burden of the poorer, did everything possible
to obstruct the organisation of any place of worship outside the City
area, though the tide of fashion and of wealth was rapidly flowing
towards the West End. Hence the old communal regulations, which had
prohibited the establishment of rival congregations in order to
secure unity, were now employed to enforce a highly inconvenient
spiritual monopoly.

These premonitory
rumblings reached their climax only some years later. In 1836, a
number of members of the Spanish and Portuguese congregation
petitioned the Mahamad for the introduction into the service of "such
alterations and modifications as were in the line of the changes
introduced in the reform synagogue in Hamburg and other places."
Prolonged and unfruitful discussions followed. At length, in 1839, a
further address was presented, laying particular stress on the need
for the abbreviation of the liturgy, a more convenient hour of
service, sermons in the English language, the introduction of a
choir, and the abolition of the observance of the second days of the
holydays. This, too, meeting with no success, the reformers requested
permission to erect a branch synagogue in the West End, near their
homes, in which the desired changes might be introduced. Finally, the
breach came, at a meeting held on April 15th, 1840, at which the new
"Reform" congregation was definitely organised. One of the points
which had attracted attention at that time (it seems petty and indeed
ridiculous today) was the time-honoured distinction in the liturgy
between the Sephardi and Ashkenazi elements, reflecting their
distinct background and history. Accordingly, the leaders of the new
community determined to abandon this differentiation: and with the
eighteen members of the Spanish and Portuguese community who led the
secession there were associated a handful of gentlemen belonging to
the Ashkenazi bodies, most, if not all, being members of the Great
Synagogue. Three of them belonged to the Goldsmid family--Aaron Asher
Goldsmid, Francis H. Goldsmid, and Frederick D. Goldsmid: the others
were Albert Cohen, Montague Levyssohn, and Solomon Lazarus. (A little
later on, they were followed by Benjamin Elkin, who played a
prominent part in the literary defence of the movement; when he died
in 1848, the Synagogue imposed such stringent conditions before
consenting to bury him at his wife's side that the ex-warden, Sir
Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, by now a baronet, also resigned and transferred
to the new congregation the legacy of £3,000 that he had
intended for his ancestral place of worship.)

Previous to this the
controversy had been an internal affair of the Spanish and Portuguese
synagogue; now, the Ashkenazi synagogues were inevitably drawn into
it. It happened, moreover, that there was at this time an interregnum
in the office of Haham of the older community. Raphael Meldola, who
had occupied the office since 1805, died in 1828, and his son David
filled the functions of Ab-Beth-Din only. Hence Rabbi Hirschell was
the unquestioned head of the English Rabbinate, and it became his
duty to face the emergency. He was by now an old man, nearing eighty
years of age, his once-powerful frame wasted by continuous fasting,
his mentality hardly attuned to the requirements of the English-born
generation that had grown up during his period of office. Had the
crisis occurred a few years earlier, he might have been able to
master it and to prevent the schism. As it was, he found himself
driven, somewhat reluctantly, to an extreme policy of which he is
thought not to have entirely approved. The first official reaction in
the Ashkenazi community was in April 1841 when the vestries of the
Great and other City synagogues resolved that no person who did not
conform in religious matters as hitherto and did not recognise the
established ecclesiastical authorities might henceforth be elected a
member of the Board of Deputies. In this, Hirschell took no
ostensible share. However, on September 9th, 1841, a meeting was held
at his residence under the chairmanship of Sir Moses Montefiore,
which was attended by the wardens and honorary officers of the
Metropolitan synagogues and members of the Board of Deputies, and a
declaration was drawn up to the effect that persons who rejected the
authority of the oral law could not be permitted to associate with
observant Jews in any religious rite or ceremony. With some
difficulty, the Chief Rabbi was induced to affix his signature to
this "caution ", though he rightly feared that it might make the
breach irreparable. He succeeded indeed in having its publication
withheld for a time. But he was unable to bridge the rift.
Preparations for opening the West London Synagogue of British Jews
(as the reformers called their place of worship, in order to abandon
the distinction between Ashkenazi and Sephardi) were being pressed
forward; an old Dissenting Chapel in Burton Street, off Euston Road,
having been adapted for the purpose. On January 27th, 1842, it was
consecrated. Five days previous, on January 22nd, the "caution" was
read publicly by the respective Secretaries in the Great Synagogue
and other Jewish places of worship in London (except the Western
Synagogue) together with proclamations to the same effect from their
own governing bodies.

The breach was now
final. The episode was not indeed of such vital importance in the
history of the Great Synagogue as it was in that of the Spanish and
Portuguese congregation. The terms of the "caution" were not so
extreme as those of the Herem which had been automatically incurred
by Yehidim of the latter organisation by daring to open a rival place
of worship in London. Its loss in membership was moreover trivial,
both absolutely and in relation to the total body. On the other hand,
the ferment within the community continued for some time. On April
5th, 1842, for example, a meeting of seatholders of the various
Ashkenazi synagogues was held at the London Tavern under the
chairmanship of Levy Hyman Cohen, at which a memorial was drawn up
for presentation to the respective vestries, respectfully drawing
attention to various matters connected with rendering of public
worship. The existing method of the recital of prayers was described
as being "as unaccountable as it is unseemly", and various
suggestions for the amelioration of the system were suggested,
particular stress being laid on the necessity of a more impressive
rendering, English sermons, and the abbreviation of the liturgy by
the omission of interpolated passages.

Seating
Plan of Great Synagogue, 19th century

As one looks back on
the schism, after this long interval of years, it seems in some ways
rather insubstantial. The Reformers, though they did not reject the
oral law as drastically as their critics alleged, were impatient of
the Rabbinic development of Judaism and tended to omit much that was
poetic in Jewish worship and beautiful in Jewish ceremonial, simply
because it had no Biblical authority. They could not realise that the
intellectual world was entering upon a phase when, precisely in their
own advanced religious circles, the attitude towards the Bible would
change, and they would be driven back to a conception of an
ever-developing evolutionary Judaism, interpreted in each era by its
religious leaders - "every generation and its seekers, every
generation and its teachers" - a conception nearer by far to that of
the Rabbis of the Talmudic age than that of the Reformers of 1840. As
for the minutiae of worship and the manner of conducting divine
service, which a century ago seemed to be the crux of the dispute,
improvements were easily and insensibly incorporated, little by
little, in the usage of most English congregations, the Great
Synagogue generally leading the way. Within a very few years, some of
the revolutionary proposals of the Secessionists had become almost a
commonplace. A little more patience, a little more imagination, and
the schism would have been unnecessary. That this is no exaggeration
may be seen from a brochure issued by the Chief Rabbi in 1847: Laws
and Regulations for all the Synagogues in the British Empire. In
this, without the slightest deviation from orthodox requirements, a
considerable part of what had been the demands of the Reformers was
met, in fact if not in form. Elaborate arrangements were laid down to
secure decorum during service: and even the vexed question of "the
prolonged Meshabirach" was solved by stipulating that only one such
formula was to be recited for each individual on his being called to
the Law. As far as the Great Synagogue was concerned, a modification
of the former system of offerings entered into force from the
Passover of 1843. At the same time (in imitation of the example set
by the Hambro' Synagogue eleven years earlier, and already adopted by
most of the more important congregations in the provinces) the
companion abuse of the sale of Synagogal honours (Mitzvoth) was
discontinued; the pecuniary loss resulting from this, estimated at
about £600 yearly, being counterbalanced by a graduated charge
on seat rentals. As early as 1841 the Propitiatory Prayers recited on
the Day of Atonement were abbreviated, printed papers being
circulated to indicate which had been selected; and there was no
reason why this precedent should not have been further
developed.

One point that had
been insisted upon by the Reformers was the necessity for regular
sermons in English. In the eighteenth century, the pulpit addresses
had been on the whole instructional rather than hortatory, and (so
far as the Great Synagogue was concerned) always in Yiddish. Solomon
Hirschell had naturally continued this tradition, his most important
appearances in the pulpit - though not, as has sometimes been stated,
the only ones - being on the conventional Sabbaths before the Day of
Atonement and the Passover, when he expounded the regulations of
those solemn occasions on the basis of Talmudic teaching. Sometimes,
on special occasions, he spoke in English. English sermons from other
qualified persons - mainly laymen - were not unknown. It is stated that
an address delivered by Tobias Goodman at the Denmark Court Synagogue
on the occasion of the death of Princess Charlotte, on November 19th,
1817, was the earliest delivered in English in any synagogue in the
country, though the same claim is made for a series begun at
Liverpool as early as 1806. The exact date when English preaching
began at the Great Synagogue is not recorded, but about the year
1830, Dr. Joshua van Oven and Arthur Lumley Davids (the precocious
Orientalist) and in 1832-4 Henry Naphtali Solomon (who kept a
once-famous school at Edmonton) were among those who gave occasional
vernacular sermons in London.3 In 1841, when the Reform controversy
was entering upon its most embittered phase, it was resolved to meet
one of the criticisms of the Reformers by making arrangements for
pulpit instruction in English at the Great Synagogue, and
advertisements were published inviting applications from competent
persons. The most likely candidate was David Myer Isaacs, who had
already given proof of his ability at Liverpool and elsewhere and
who, on March 13th, 1841, delivered the sermon at the special service
on the triumphant return of Sir Moses Montefiore from his Damascus
Mission.3 He was, however, foreign-born, and perhaps because of this
no election was made. Not long after, a new Chief Rabbi belonging to
the younger generation took it as a matter of course that an
important part of his duties was the delivery of regular sermons (in
the vernacular, as soon as he could master it), and this old-standing
complaint was satisfied.

Another demand of
those who sought synagogal reform was the introduction of a choir to
replace the traditional Meshorrer and Bassista who had hitherto
assisted the cantor on the reading-desk - a system which was not only
foreign, but, to English eyes and ears, almost unseemly. After Isaac
Polack's death, the congregation had no Hazan of outstanding
reputation, it being a period of short tenures and general decline.
Moreover, the disturbed condition of the Continent made it impossible
to secure the best talent from abroad, as would have been the normal
course. For a long time, accordingly, the congregation had to reduce
the scale of its requirements and make shift with local talent and
the existing functionaries. At the beginning of 1807, it was formally
decided to appoint a Hazan, at a salary of £105 yearly, together
with living accommodation and taxes, but there seems to have been
only one likely candidate in the country - a Mr. Isaac Alexander, who
intimated in the following September that he had decided not to
apply. At the end of November, it was decided to prolong the
time-limit for applications, owing to the interruption of regular
correspondence with the Continent, but in spite of this nothing
resulted.

Towards the end of
the Napoleonic Wars a further attempt was made, and two likely
candidates presented themselves: Myer Metz, of Offenbach, and Nathan
Solomon, of Gröningen. Each had a considerable following, and as
a compromise it was decided to appoint them both: Myer Metz entered
into office in 1814 as Reader and Nathan Solomon joined him on the
Almemor as Hazan Sheni in the following year. (It was thus that the
custom of having two Hazanim at the Great Synagogue began.) They did
not give complete satisfaction - on 19th December, 1815, the two were
solemnly reprimanded for negligence in the performance of their
duties. Thereafter, relations were smoother. In 1815, a portrait of
the Rev. Nathan Solomon, "Reader in the Great Synagogue" was
exhibited at the Royal Academy by the Jewish artist, Solomon Polack.4
But his tenure did not last for long. His health proved unequal to
the London atmosphere, and after only two years he relinquished his
post and left the country, the congregation assuming the
responsibility for the care of his children. Metz, on the other hand
(who on his appointment had a house found for him by the
congregation, and furnished at a cost of £200) remained in
office for thirteen years. He was assisted on the Almemor, as
chorister, by his son Morris Metz, who, however, was subject to the
normal chorister's troubles. In June 1821 he submitted a petition to
the Vestry informing them that, his voice being on decline, he wished
to go to Jamaica; he was granted £10 for the journey and his
father was authorised to appoint another assistant. The latter had
now become a popular figure. When he passed away in 1827 it was
resolved by the Committee "that the funeral be conducted in the most
respectful manner", and that "twelve mourning and six Hackney coaches
be provided". He was succeeded by Binom Heinich (Enoch) Eliasson, or
Elias, of Darmstadt, formerly assistant reader (in succession to
Nathan Solomon) who was elected by a majority of one vote over A. M.
Voorsanger, of Arnhem. Elias was of a very parsimonious nature, and
it is said that for the sake of economy when he first came to England
he crossed Europe with his family by barge, taking a fantastically
long time over the journey. One of the conditions of his engagement
was that he was to bring a boy singer with him; and his choice fell
on Julius Lazarus (Israel) Mombach, who was later to play so
important a role in the history of English synagogal music. After
only two years, in 1829, Elias had to retire, a neglected chill
having affected his voice. (He subsequently became Director of
Concerts at the Lyceum Theatre.) His place remained vacant for three
years, notwithstanding the applications which were received from
various parts of the Continent and a constant procession to the
Almemor of aspirants to office. It was thus not until 1832 that the
congregation decided to appoint Simon Ascher, of Gröningen, a
fine, clear tenor, whose florid style of recitative with frequent
roulades long remained a beloved memory with London Jews.5 He was
assisted by young Mombach, who stood on his right hand as Meshorrer;
the Bassista on his left being Jehiel Hanau, who in 1817 had made a
brief appearance as Hebrew publisher.

In 1841, thanks to
the efforts above all of Henry Hyman Cohen, this traditional method
was at last abandoned, and an organised choir on English lines was
introduced. Ascher selected for training a number of youths with good
voices, and they were reinforced by Samuel Lewis, the last Bassista
under the old system, who sang in the new choir for half a century.
The Meshorrer on the other hand became choirmaster. It proved to be a
particularly happy appointment. As a composer of synagogue music
Mombach was equalled only by Solomon Sulzer, of Vienna, and a large
proportion of the now-famous Anglo-Jewish choral melodies were first
familiarised by him and his collaborators. Previously, the Hazan had
drawn upon miscellaneous secular sources to embellish his recital.
The story is told how Solomon Hirschell was once informed that the
reader had introduced "Don Juan" into the service on the previous
Friday night. He had never heard of "Don Juan" before, but when the
point was elucidated jumped to conclusions, and was more than
shocked. "That man be brought to Synagogue!" he exclaimed. "I will
not have him or anything connected with him in the place!" At the
same time, Hirschell had strong objections to use on the Almemor of
what he termed the "Book of Strokes" [i.e. musical notation]
and the tuning-fork, and would not permit the repetition by the new
choir of the word Hallelujah unless the last syllable, embodying the
Divine name, were omitted until the close.

Julius
Lazarus Mombach, Choirmaster at the Great Synagogue,
1841-1880

Mombach became an
institution. The New Synagogue, too, summoned him to direct its
choir, and he divided his time on Sabbath mornings between the two
places of worship. He would make his appearance in Duke's Place
during the reading of the Haphtarah, and the congregation would rise
in his honour as he entered. He was to remain in office until his
death in 1880 - fifty-two years after he had first entered the service
of the congregation. To him is due in large measure that dignified,
simple tradition of sacred music which, spreading from the Great
Synagogue, has become characteristic of the Anglo-Jewish synagogal
tradition everywhere to our own day.

As regards the other
great point of argument in 1840-42--the concentration of the
Synagogues in the City, out of walking distance for those well-to-do
members of the community who lived in the West End -a solution was
similarly not long delayed, becoming inevitable with the growing
numbers of the Jewish population and the constant expansion of the
Metropolis. But by the time this step was taken the surviving links
with eighteenth-century Anglo-Jewry had been broken, and the face of
the community had changed.

1 A parallel, but
less balanced agitation had indeed developed independently in
England. One of the earliest pieces of propaganda in any language for
radical reform in Judaism is to be found in an anonymous pamphlet: "A
Peep into the Synagogue, or a Letter to the Jews" (London, c. 1790).
In this, the author--obviously a member of the Ashkenazi section of
the community--after criticising the conduct of the Synagogue and its
services in the most virulent terms, suggested the rendering of the
prayers in English instead of Hebrew, and even the abrogation of the
rite of circumcision.

2 See page
57.

3 Somewhat later
(1842/3) occasional sermons were delivered in the Great Synagogue or
the Synagogue Hall also by Louis Loewe, B. H. Ascher, D. Asher, I.
Issachar (subsequently minister in Jamaica) and Israel Levy (son of
"Reb Aron" and subsequently minister in Hull). Weekly lectures of the
old-fashioned type were also delivered in Yiddish every Saturday,
between the afternoon and evening services, by the Rabbi of the
Burial Society.

4 This was
presumably the original of the engraving which was to have been
distributed to subscribers to Alexander's Mahzor in 1815, no copy of
which is however recorded.

5 Ascher's son,
Joseph Asher, was private pianist and conductor to the Empress
Eugénie, and is remembered as composer of Alice, where art
thou? One of his daughters, Flora, a magnificent soprano, was mother
of Theodor Fink, the Australian newspaper proprietor, and thus
grandmother of the Ranee of Pudakota.

Terms and Conditions, Licenses and Restrictions for the use of this website:

This website is
owned by JewishGen and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain. All
material found herein is owned by or licensed to us. You may view, download, and
print material from this site only for your own personal use. You may not post
material from this site on another website without our consent. You may not
transmit or distribute material from this website to others. You may not use
this website or information found at this site for any commercial purpose.